Kelford Reporting Negotiation Console
Use this to keep the conversation focused on one practical outcome: getting the reporting landscape into one place first, then deepening automation and drill-through sensibly.
Main framing
Everything visible first. Not everything equally mature first.
3-month visibility-first structure
Financial foundation first, broader domains staged next
We can absolutely get the reporting landscape into one place. The key is deciding how much automation and drill-through depth we want in the first 3 months.
One place to view the business clearly
What this conversation is really about
The CEO's main goal is to be able to look at the dashboards and reports in one place.
The first commitment is centralised visibility. Automation and drill-through should then be taken as far as practical based on the maturity of each domain.
My recommended position
Recommend a 3-month visibility-first structure: deliver the CEO and financial foundation properly, bring the broader reporting domains into one centralised environment, automate where source data and logic are ready, add drill-through first in the most mature areas, and use discovery during the contract to prioritise deeper operational maturity next.
Everything visible first. Not everything equally mature first.
How phases 2 to 5 tie in
Phases 2 to 5 are broader domain coverage, not simply later dashboards.
Phase 1
Foundation plus core executive and financial reporting.
Phases 2 to 5
Inventory, KPI control, manufacturing, supply chain, people, and other broader reporting domains.
3-month option
Bring much of that broader coverage forward at visibility level, while automation and drill-through mature over time.
Indicative later-phase ranges
These ranges are indicative only. Variability increases as the work moves further into operational logic, reconciliation, and process-level consistency.
Inventory & Working Capital
NZD $8k-15k
KPI Control Tower
NZD $10k-20k
Manufacturing Performance
NZD $15k-35k
Supply Chain & Fulfilment
NZD $10k-25k
The key variable is not whether these domains appear. The key variable is how far automation and drill-through go in each one.
Depth by domain
Use this to stay honest in the meeting.
| Domain | Visible in first 3 months | Automated in first 3 months | Drillable in first 3 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| CEO Summary | Yes | Likely yes | Selectively |
| Finance | Yes | Likely yes | Likely yes |
| Inventory / Working Capital | Yes | Likely yes | Maybe |
| Sales | Yes | Maybe | Maybe |
| Manufacturing | Yes | Selectively | Limited initially |
| Supply Chain | Yes | Selectively | Limited initially |
| People & Culture | Yes | Maybe | Limited initially |
The first commitment is visibility across the reporting landscape. Maturity depth varies by domain.
Key CEO questions
Keep the answer short first, then expand only if he wants the reasoning.
Can all of this be done in 3 months?
Yes, I think a 3-month contract can absolutely be structured to get the dashboards and reporting landscape into one place.
Why and commercial meaning
The main variable is not whether the domains can appear. The main variable is how much automation and drill-through depth we commit to across each domain in that first window.
Use the 3 months to centralise the reporting environment properly, deliver the executive and financial foundation strongly, and bring the broader reporting areas in at a useful visibility level.
Would you like the first 3 months optimised around getting the whole reporting landscape visible, or around taking fewer areas deeper straight away?
What do phases 2 to 5 cost?
I can absolutely outline them commercially, but I would treat them as indicative ranges at this stage.
Why and commercial meaning
Those phases represent the broader domain coverage beyond the core financial foundation. What changes is the depth of automation and drill-through, not whether the domains can appear at all.
They should be treated as investment ranges, with variability increasing in the more operationally complex areas.
Do you want those broader areas brought into the first 3 months at visibility level, or treated as deeper follow-on layers?
Why are later phases more expensive?
Because the further we move into operational areas, the more effort depends on business logic and source consistency rather than just dashboard build.
Why and commercial meaning
Finance is usually closer to existing board reporting logic. Manufacturing, supply chain, and some people metrics often require more definition work, reconciliation, and process-level interpretation.
The domains themselves can still appear early. The variable cost is usually how far we take automation and drill-through.
That is why I’d separate the goal of getting everything visible from the goal of making everything equally mature on day one.
Can this stay commercially sensible relative to our current Power BI spend?
Yes, if we structure the first 3 months around visibility first and stage the deeper maturity sensibly.
Why and commercial meaning
The comparison is not just software cost versus contractor cost. It is whether leadership gets one usable reporting environment that reduces admin and improves clarity.
Keep it sensible by getting the reporting landscape visible first, then deepening the harder areas progressively.
Is the bigger priority to keep the initial spend tighter, or to use the 3 months to get the broader reporting environment in place quickly?
Can we do this as a 3-month contract?
Yes, absolutely.
Why and commercial meaning
A 3-month structure is enough to build the executive and financial foundation, bring the wider dashboard landscape into one place, and then push automation and drill-through as far as practical.
That is the strongest balance between commitment and realism.
Do you want the first 3 months centred on broad visibility, or on deeper maturity in fewer areas?
What would you recommend?
I would recommend a 3-month visibility-first structure.
Why and commercial meaning
It gets leadership the practical outcome first, which is being able to see the business in one place, while keeping the more variable operational depth commercially honest.
Strongest balance of commitment, usability, and flexibility.
If we took that route, which operational areas would you want deepest in the first pass?
Structure Options
Offer three choices only. More than that creates noise.
Fixed Phase 1 + Scoped Expansion
Best for tighter early spend certainty. Build the financial foundation first and shape later domains separately.
3-Month Visibility-First
Best overall fit. Build the executive and financial core, then bring the broader reporting landscape into one place during the same contract.
Embedded 3-Month Model
Best for flexibility. Useful if priorities may move, but it needs tighter boundary management.
Commercial Levers
If budget pressure comes up, trade through depth and sequencing before you trade away protection.
Trade these first
Reduce first-pass drill-through depth.
Reduce first-pass automation scope.
Bring manufacturing and supply chain in at visibility level first.
Stage commentary-heavy or less mature areas later.
Adjust the 3-month shape between broad visibility and deeper maturity.
Do not trade these first
Owning every moving part without clear boundaries.
Fixing messy source data for free.
Changing scope inside a fixed commitment.
Treating all reporting areas as if they can mature at the same speed.
Private Guardrails
Fill these in privately before the meeting.
My minimum acceptable rate or monthly number
My preferred contract shape
What would make the number go up
What extra work I am not taking on for free
What would make this too broad for the structure
Close Scripts
End by recommending a structure and a next step.
If he wants speed
Yes, I think we can absolutely use the 3 months to get the broader reporting landscape into one place quickly. My recommendation would be to centralise the visibility first, then deepen the automation and drill-through where the maturity supports it.
If he wants explanation
The reason I’d structure it that way is that it gets leadership the practical outcome first, which is being able to see the business in one place, while keeping the more variable implementation depth commercially honest.
If he wants budget control
The best way to keep this commercially sensible is to bring the reporting landscape together first, then stage the heavier automation and drill-through work rather than forcing all of that maturity into one early commitment.
One-line anchor
His real goal is to see the dashboards in one place. My job is to separate domain visibility from maturity depth.